We are paying the FBI to prevent terrorism, and we have monitors exmining
websites. People who openly advertise that they are crazy (as von Brunn
did on his website) should not be allowed to possess firearms. In
addition, I am afraid that airport-type controls should be instituted at
places like the Holocaust museum(s). The ubiquitous presence of firearms
permits too many crazies to go around killing people. If you don't want
to limit firearms possession, we'll all have to live in an armed
They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. If you go around taking weapons
away from people who act crazy in public, they'll simply stop being public
about their business. You will, therefore, accomplish nothing.
Meanwhile, you've deprived someone who fears alien abduction, and its
resultant anal probing, the ability to defend himself.
It is unlawful for anyone who has been adjudicated mentally defective to
possess a firearm. What are you proposing, that anyone who expresses an
unpopular opinion on a Web side be adjudicated mentally defective?
Tell us how to draft such a statute so that one could not have _you_
declared mentally defective on the basis of your continued off-topic
rantings on this newsgroup.
Or maybe we just train security guards to a high enough standard that some
decrepit old codger won't get the drop on them.
Why are you singling out that one murder as being of such vast significance?
He was a convicted felon, therefore just his possession of a firearm was
illegal even before he shot that security guard. But as you might have
noticed criminals don't worry much about breaking the law which is why
passing more laws making guns more illegal has little if any effect on them.
You might also note that it was airport-type security that prevented this
particular criminal from entering the museum, that's the reason the only
person he shot was a security guard at the entrance.
As for the presence of firearms permitting crazies to go around killing
people, you need to explain why a state like Vermont with extremely liberal
firearms laws (e.g. you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon) is at the bottom of the list for violent crime in the U.S.
Shouldn't all those armed folks in Vermont packing guns result in lots of
criminal use of firearms? Hey, maybe there are factors other than the
existence of firearms at work here, perhaps dealing with those other factors
is worth a try rather than looking at disarming sane, sober, law-abiding
citizens who aren't causing anyone any problems, hmmmmm?
This isn't really a response to the above, it simply adds dimension to the
complexity of the issues at hand.
Another aspect of criminal/terrorist deterrent discussion that seldom seems
to come up is the notion of "goal oriented attackers." If someone is bent on
causing harm weapons substitution will get them around any legal
restrictions on guns, knives, or explosives. As an example of how anything
could be used as a weapon a recent episode of Time Warp had a guy using
everything from ball point pens to scissors to screwdrivers and crowbars as
"throwing" weapons. Jackie Chan's movies bring up even more examples... even
if some are bizarre! Ban handguns and then more lethal long guns become more
Add in common household chemicals, simply ignoring the restrictions on
"real" weapons, and the theft of "real" weapons (even from police and
military) and a goal oriented attacker can still carry out his deeds. Add
in substance abuse, mental defect, and a zeal for control as motives and it
becomes clear that it is impossible to stop all of it... especially the lone
wolf types who keep their mouths shut.
It's a pretty interesting subject for which there are no "sound bite"
Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like utility
knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute a fixed blade
sheathed knife for work or crime and they've accomplished nothing. First
responders often have need for one hand operation as well as those with
disabilities. Thus they'd also be hurting "legitimate" users even if they
think people don't need the functionality.
I agree completely, hence my refereences to common sense and its absence.
Nevertheless, it is a "pity" that someone could kill a security guard with
a weapon that should not have been in his possession (considering his frame
of mind). I doubt that anything Jacky Chan-like would have had that
Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in that
Kiva - Loans that change lives.
I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line should be.
To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see Gran Torino, and
decide who should or should not have had weapons. To me it seems easy. I
for one should not have dangerous stuff, because I'm a hot head. And
because the only experience with "fire weapons" that I had was at a
carnival when I was 16.
Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not have so
many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through to keep from
violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on the real problems
more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so defenseless there would
not be so much crime. Trying to protect the public from itself results in
If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he was
defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.